Author
Topic: Not the job for you, 27 minutes after the interview ends! (Read 11474 times)

What really was disheartening (about what I said in Post #11) is that boss interviewed a man in a wheelchair, a man who was an ethnic minority, and a woman. So (former) boss said he felt he had done his "duty". . . even though he had pre-selected someone else.

Better to find out sooner than later, I figure. That way, you're not constantly wondering (especially if you never hear!) or worrying about taking a job that's okay, but not as great as this one (and then you wind up hearing too late!). I don't think there's anything rude about letting you know ASAP.

Stolen from Ask A Manager: “I appreciate your time speaking with me about the position, and I hope you’ll keep me in mind if something opens up in the future that you think I would be a good fit for. Is there anything you felt I could do to be a stronger candidate in the future?”

I applied to a company that has an online application system, and your application has a status of whether or not it is being considered. Not five minutes after I finished a phone interview for one job, the status was changed to "not being considered". I was told I would be notified by HR what the final decision was, and three weeks later I'm still waiting for the HR notification.

I once interviewed for a teaching job. They called me back for a second interview, but before I could get to the second interview, I got a call not to come in, that they had found "the perfect candidate" and the job was filled. I felt more than a little put off that the interviewer just gushed over the phone to me about the person that they'd hired. Okay . . . whatever . . . but how do you know you found the "perfect candidate" if you didn't interview everyone?

Rejection news is never fun (sorry that this one didn't work out), so I don't know that the timing really takes the sting away. I would rather it be exchanged sooner than later, as that avoids wasting anyone's time. The candidate isn't spending time following up and the company isn't answering those inquiries.

Most managers that I work with know immediately after the interview whether that was the right person or not. They almost always tell the candidate that there are more interviews coming (sometimes true, sometimes not), but then they call me and give the yes or no. When it's a no, it's not always that the interview went poorly or that the candidate was awful. In many cases, there was one specific skill (whether it was advertised or not) that wasn't in place or the previous interview went slightly better.

I think a worse case is when I get a yes answer, but there are other interviews coming. It always seems so unfair to me to have to give a "no" to someone who didn't even get to interview! It was just a case of poor timing!!!

There have been cases where I have delayed the answer for a bit in the hopes that it doesn't sting so much, but it's never fun to give!

I've interviewed a lot for teachers at two schools where I'm a governor; on each occasion there has been at least one internal candidate but there genuinely has never been a foregone conclusion that they would get the job. (In fact, they often haven't.)

We've had people call and say: "Is there any point me coming for the interview? I know Mr/Ms Existing Staff Member is on the shortlist so be honest I'd rather save the time/travel expense if they're the one you're going to appoint."

It's a shame that that's the immediate assumption because that's how so many places operate, and just goes to show that you can try to put rules in place to ensure fair play, but they can always be gotten around to suit the employer.

A candidate has to get dressed up, travel to the site, go through the ordeal of being interviewed, only to be rejected in favor of the "internal candidate." The candidate has wasted time, gas, and dry cleaning money in order to satisfy some HR rule. Everyone says, "well, it's experience," but that candidate could have used that time to continue the search or to interview at a company that is serious about the process.

After having this happen to me, I finally told the last person who used that phrase, "Your company needs to stop wasting people's time."

It's interesting because at any organization I've worked, the policy was to not only advertise jobs postings internally first, but also to interview for those internal positions first. I think it's a nice policy that shows loyalty to your current workforce. Plus, if handled correctly you won't be wasting external candidates time because they won't even know about the job until after you've already ruled out any internal candidates.

Hey if it makes you feel better, I once had the same thing happen for a job I drove about 30 minutes to interview at. BUt not only did I get told I didn't get the job I was told not to apply there again, as I would not get a job there. Was pretty brutal to my unemployed self-esteem.

Pretty sure my former employer decided to give them way more info than asked for and lied about me, not something I would put past him, and when I had someone call and check it they got an earful from him. I didn't push it cause I had already found another job.

I've been on several faculty search committees. Yes, someone can interview very well, and have a resume that matches the desired skill set, so that they stand out over and above any other candidate. Last committee I was on, we had a tenured professor apply- he had experience, his skills complimented the skills of the current faculty, he was a fantastic lecturer. We knew he'd be our #1 because all the other people we were interviewing had less experience, and skills that overlapped with people already on the faculty. So it may have been that they were looking for some particular qualification, that the OP didn't have, but someone else did have, and they knew they were not going to hire someone without it. On one of our searches, we specified that the candidate must have a MSW- that's a requirement of the accrediting body. One candidate got past the initial screen by saying that she had a MSW, but as we checked her resume, we found out she didn't. We could have contacted her right away and told her she didn't get the job, because no matter how well she interviewed, she wasn't going to be hired without a MSW.

I've been on several faculty search committees. Yes, someone can interview very well, and have a resume that matches the desired skill set, so that they stand out over and above any other candidate. Last committee I was on, we had a tenured professor apply- he had experience, his skills complimented the skills of the current faculty, he was a fantastic lecturer. We knew he'd be our #1 because all the other people we were interviewing had less experience, and skills that overlapped with people already on the faculty. So it may have been that they were looking for some particular qualification, that the OP didn't have, but someone else did have, and they knew they were not going to hire someone without it. On one of our searches, we specified that the candidate must have a MSW- that's a requirement of the accrediting body. One candidate got past the initial screen by saying that she had a MSW, but as we checked her resume, we found out she didn't. We could have contacted her right away and told her she didn't get the job, because no matter how well she interviewed, she wasn't going to be hired without a MSW.

Also, probably not the best idea to hire someone who, ya know, lied on her application.

If I were doing the hiring, that sort of thing would land someone on my "don't ever even consider hiring" list.

I'm in HR, and I would never send someone a rejection that quickly. Even if I knew from the first five minutes they weren't the one for the job, I would at least let them think they were being seriously considered. Our process is to wait until all the candidates have been interviewed and then send the rejection letters, so it's usually a few days to a week before we let them know. When I was the job seeker myself, I always preferred to be told I didn't get a job as opposed to be left wondering, but I think such a quick rejection would have hurt my feelings somewhat.

I went for a job, and all the unsuccessful candidates were told they had not got the job before they were off the premises.

Another job I went for, I was told before the interview was over that they could not offer me the job. Alas, I was only young, and had not the nous to say, well why did you call me in for the interview? (Unlike a cousin, who at an internal promotion board was told she could not be offered advancement, so she said lets not waste each othes time going further then, and left) I was offered expenses, but as it was a case of about a shilling for the bus fare, I declined. Which tells you how long ago it was....

I agree that they probably had somebody in mind from the beginning and are just going through the motions. I would also say that if they are that indelicate then it might not be an educational environment you want to be in.